Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Higgins

Monday 21st May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan]

I have made a distinction, I hope, in trying to assist the noble Lord about what happens when those rights return to the British Olympic Association. He made a very important point about the future benefit to those companies being showcased for the work that they have done and what is happening today. What is happening today is clearly a matter for the legal department and, as I say, I am not here to defend a legal department that is looking in detail at the definition of a breakfast menu. However, I am very concerned as chairman of the British Olympic Association that companies that have done a huge amount of work for these Games should be able to showcase in the future and win further contracts in the future. Sports facilities around the world are a multimillion-pound business, and it does not end with the Games in London. For them, it is the beginning of a long road, and we should be there to support them on that road. We need to get the balance right between ensuring their recognition—which is important to their business—on the one hand, and on the other the return of the rights of the British Olympic Association, which for over one hundred years had to rely purely on private sector funding; there was not a pound from government in those hundred years. The only way to do this is through the sale of the rights through sponsorship. I believe that we can achieve that balance.

I will move on to the work of the Government. The House should have nothing but praise for the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Hugh Robertson. He fought for our athletes in maintaining funding for our Olympic and Paralympic teams after London 2012, going into the Rio cycle. He has boosted the credentials of this country to make sure that we have a decade of sport, by supporting our successful bids—and I emphasise that all these have been successful—to host the Rugby League World Cup in 2013; the Commonwealth Games, of course, in 2014; the Rugby Union World Cup in 2015; the World Athletics Championships in the Olympic stadium in 2017, and what a magnificent achievement it was to win that bid; and, not least after our great victory today, the Cricket World Cup in 2019. This will be a decade of sport for the United Kingdom.

However, Hugh Robertson will not be short of future challenges when the curtain falls on the Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is a need to restructure British sport. It is still a myriad of too many quangos and of public sector-driven and overlapping bureaucracy. I have always believed that the role of government in sport is to empower, not to micromanage. Where sport is at its best, it is driven from the athletes up, with the support and enthusiasm of their parents, families, friends, clubs and schools. It provides the ideal opportunity to implement the Prime Minister’s earlier objective of “big society, not big government”. The months after the Games will provide the best chance in a generation for fundamental reform. A leader like Hugh Robertson, who has won respect across the sporting world, has the ability to take on the forces of the past and deliver a true sporting legacy for the future. However, delivery of that sporting legacy will be our biggest challenge.

Against this background, the British Olympic Association will continue to perform its role as an independent voice for sport. When the Government, the mayor’s office’s attention and the Olympic movement move on and LOCOG is disbanded, we will still be there for the athletes. It is my view that sport holds a mirror to society. The values of sport reflect the values of society. Many of the principles and ideals inherent in sport have a broader application to our lives as a whole. The standards of probity and integrity in sport should mirror the highest standards of behaviour in society. The corresponding forms of sanction and discipline should apply if that behaviour is flouted. Keenly contested though it is, winning at any cost is inimical to the very essence of sport and to its philosophy of team spirit, honesty and loyalty.

The concept of fair play is one of sport’s most cherished tenets. Cheating, by whatever means, from overt fouling to match fixing to doping, is not fair play and has no place in sport. On 7 November last year, the greatest living Olympian, Sir Steve Redgrave, stated, with reference to the World Anti-Doping Agency:

“A two-year ban for doping is almost saying that it’s acceptable”.

He was speaking for clean athletes across the globe. Yet last month was marked by a deeply disappointing development. The Court of Arbitration of Sport formally declared the British Olympic Association’s lifetime ban for serious drugs cheats unenforceable. That effectively denied the British Olympic Association the autonomy to select Team GB athletes. We held a special meeting of all the governing bodies of sport to consider the effect of the ruling. There was a universal condemnation of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s decision to reduce to two years the bans for first-time offences. Let us hope that it is not tantamount—as postulated by my noble friend Lord Higgins—to giving a green light to the use of drugs in sport. If this proves to be the case, and nothing is done to stem the tide, we will drift inexorably towards a sporting world in which competition between athletes is equally competition between chemists’ laboratories. At the British Olympic Association and in the corridors of the IOC, national Olympic committees and international federations, we may have lost the battle. However, on behalf of the athletes whose interests we represent, we must win the war.

My noble friend Lord Higgins suggested that the benefits of performance-enhancing drugs may pass and go away during a period of two years. That may be a seriously wrong observation. If I had taken growth hormones throughout my teens and had ended up six feet tall like my noble friend Lord Bates, I guarantee that I would not have shrunk back to my present height in my 20s. That was a light-hearted way of making a serious point. If one takes a cocktail of drugs to enhance one’s performance in training and can do eight, nine or 10 times more circuit training in the winter than one would otherwise have done without those drugs, even when one comes off the drugs one can attain high performance levels with the muscular structure one has now acquired illegally by taking the performance-enhancing drugs, sometimes for a very long time. The case of growth hormones is extremely important, especially for people in their teens.

[Lord Higgins]

I entirely agree with what my noble friend said; perhaps he misheard me.

[Lord Moynihan]

I am delighted that I did mishear—and if I did, I may have done so slightly mischievously in order to make my point. I am more than grateful to my noble friend for raising the subject.

I turn briefly to the Paralympic movement. There is no doubt that the Paralympic Games this summer will be one of the highlights of 2012. When I was Minister for Sport, I went to see my then Secretary of State, Nick Ridley. He was not the greatest fan of sport. I recall a packed House of Commons for the Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill. I was a nervous Minister for Sport and he, kindly as ever, offered to do the most difficult task, which was to take on the Second Reading speech in a packed House. The former Minister for Sport, Denis Howell, leant across the Dispatch Box. I had been going to football matches regularly for the previous couple of years in order to be able to answer questions. Denis Howell asked: “So, Secretary of State, when was the last time you were at a football match?”—to which Nick Ridley replied, “At Eton, under duress”. It was a classic example that contrasted with how many days I had spent at football matches, watching 18 First Division games and 14 from the rest of the divisions. He was a great Secretary of State.

I went to see him that Wednesday morning. My headline requests were that we should have £1 million to set up the British Paralympic Association; that we should establish a ministerial review of disabled sport; and that we should request support from government to encourage the IOC to make it a requirement that any city bidding to host the Olympic Games also hosted the Paralympic Games thereafter. Nick looked at me and simply said, “Fine”. I did not stay for further discussion, but said thank you and exited to a broad smile from his private office.

True early heroes of the Paralympic association such as Bernard Atha and Dr Adrian Whiteson in particular—the latter has gone on to mastermind the Teenage Cancer Trust—should be celebrated this summer. Since that time, many Paralympians have inspired us, showing a generation that it is the ability of athletes that we should focus on rather than their disabilities. The seeds of this transformation in society were to be found in Headley Court, Stoke Mandeville and the work of Jack Ashley and the others in Parliament who steered through much-needed legislation on behalf of the disabled. This year’s Paralympic Games will be the culmination of all their work.

The British Olympic Association has been transformed over the past four or five years. It has listened to the voice of athletes as never before. The voice of athletes has been heard in the meetings of the advisory board, on which my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and the noble Lord, Lord Paul, continue to sit and give their guidance and wise advice. When I walk in to meetings of the National Olympic Committee, I am proud to see in front of me one of the most expert boards in British sport, which is why the BOA will continue to play a central role in the centre of sports policy.

However, what we will focus on now, above all, is giving maximum performance support to our athletes, all 550 of them who will be selected for Team GB this summer. One hundred and one have already been selected. Why should we give them that support? One example gives the answer. If you were fortunate enough to watch the Games in Athens, you would have seen the great gold medals that Britain won in the coxless four, Kelly Holmes’s 800 and 1,500 metres, the men’s 4 x 100 and Chris Hoy’s first gold medal in the 1 kilometre time trial. The final times of those five gold medals added together were 12 minutes and six seconds, but the difference between all five being gold and all five being silver was 0.545 of one second. That is why it is so tough to win gold medals at the Olympic Games, and that is why the work of the British Olympic Association should be devoted—every minute, every hour, every day—to supporting every one of our athletes on Team GB to deliver their best performance on the day. If we do that, we have the talent to match the success that we had in Beijing.

Our aspirational target remains fourth place in the medal table. It will be tough, incredibly tough. We will not beat the Chinese, Russians or the Americans, and the Germans and the Australians will be very much on our heels, but if we can continue to support our athletes, along with their families, their coaches and their governing bodies, we will see remarkable feats of sporting success this summer. I have every confidence that our Olympic and Paralympic teams will deliver, and I wish them well.

Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Moynihan and Lord Higgins

Monday 27th June 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Moynihan]

My Lords, I have a brief question for the Minister. I assume that Northern Ireland is making its own regulations in the context of this order. Can the Minister give us the background as to why this applies only to England, Scotland and Wales, and not Northern Ireland, yet the definition of “United Kingdom waters” is those waters adjacent to Great Britain or, under paragraph 3(c),

“the legal relationship of the seafarer’s employment is located within Great Britain or retains a sufficiently close link with Great Britain”?

What would “a sufficiently close link” mean in this context?

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, it is a very long time indeed since I qualified as a member of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers. Since then, I have taken a strong interest in the industry, both as a Minister and Opposition spokesman on trade, in Select Committees and so on. This is an extremely important order. The Minister has set out clearly why it is before us: as a result of European legislation. However, I have always considered it important that the number of ships on the British register should be as large as possible. It has considerable advantages to the UK, not least because, generally speaking, if ships are registered here, the headquarters, operating offices and so on tend also to be in the UK; the Treasury, in particular, benefits as far as taxation and other things are concerned. In addition, it encourages other, related, industries such as insurance, which have traditionally been located in London.

That is very important, but there are other aspects such as the training of officers, which again builds up the link with the UK. We remain a major maritime nation. None the less, the size of the register has, for reasons such as taxation, varied over the years. However, we have always played an important role in the IMO and so on.

This proposal, the extremely helpful Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment really examine two possibilities. They rightly reject the idea that we could do nothing, because, as the Minister has pointed out, we are under considerable duress from the European Union to deal with the matter. So the alternatives are either to change the position on differential pay for employees from the European Union, the EEA and the designated states—the designated states are of course really quite expensive in this context—or simply to say that you cannot differentiate at all, regardless of where the employees come from. The Government have opted for the first of these options and, I believe, rightly so. I have received some assessments from the Chamber of Shipping, and the impact assessment also deals with these matters as far as both options are concerned. They say that if one were to do it for seafarers from the EEA and designated states, the average percentage increase in wage costs, which range between 6 per cent and 32 per cent, would impact on a ship’s overall running costs by up to 7.2 per cent. On the other hand, if one were to take the widespread option, the range would be an increase of 10 per cent to 130 per cent; it would depend, of course, on the type of ship and so on. The increase in the overall cost could be as high as 56 per cent.

The industry is highly competitive. If we are compelled to pay higher rates, as would be the case in the international market generally, that would obviously have a serious effect on our position and be likely to result in a considerable reduction in overseas earnings. While it appears that there is no choice but to go for the European option rather than the global one, that would seem to be the right solution. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he is certainly not proposing to consider any further a wider option, which would have a very serious economic effect at a time when the British economy is obviously under considerable strain.

There is a provision in the order for a review after five years. I hope that the Minister will say that if it turns out to be the case that the percentage increase in wage costs that I have indicated under the provisions of the order is having a more serious effect than the one that we anticipate at the moment—which is already serious—a review might be carried out earlier to see whether, in the light of experience, some change ought to be made in the order. However, overall, this is probably the best compromise that can be effected. None the less, it will have an adverse effect on the British economy.